Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
In January I asked for players to post screenshots and send me saves. How many have I received? Zero.

There is reluctance to go public with your own defeats and I understand that. People react with ridicule (hell I do that to others all the time, can't help the lizard in me!), and also tend to put blame on the guy reporting the problem ("he must have done something to bring this onto himself").

When you're on the winning side, you tend to think you're winning because you're New Napoleon, not because some gross inconsistency helped you. I had to play the game from both sides, up to blizz period, to really see something is wrong.

ORIGINAL: color
Oleg, I see we both think along the same axis and that we share a common opinion

"Same Axis".... he he.... he he.... <insert Beavis and Butthead laugh>... dude, he said same Axis....

I also think that it can be ok to leave the blizzard on as long as it might be now, but if the effects gradually dimishing over time, you will get a more fluent and natural transition between blizzard and snow. I can see the reasoning in that the first blizzard turns is a real shock, but people adapt and learn to cope, so come end first winter the difference between snow & blizzard can be less marked.

Exactly. Leaving CV alone, and making the attrition do all the dirty work would make Germans most vulnerable in february, and that is not the idea. If we want the game script to follow the history (kinda sorta) then there should be big shock in December, with stabilizing later on in Jan and Feb. That can be done simply by keeping most of blizz effects but making it last shorter.

I also think definitely some "equalization" in effects between blizz and snow is needed. In fact I'd suggest making mud turns less drastic as well. Big and I mean radically BIG effects in combat model, caused by weather changes, are not welcome, especially when your basic weather model is in fact very crude (all-encompasing changes over whole map etc)

We're lucky to have you Oleg to keep us on the straight and narrow [:)]

I think the solution to the blizzard problem is to spread the impact of blizzard across a range of issues. The 'huge spike in changing the relative combat effectiveness' does need to be smoothed but I think some areas don't truly reflect the nature of cold weather operations. Having just returned from a field exercise where it never got above freezing and I did have the luxury of cold weather gear (two sleeping bags!) I can vouch for the fatigue that such weather presents you and also the benefits of shelter. In an earlier post on another thread I commented along the following lines as to what the winter should be:

In total the first winter must have shock value: it was the German's first setback on land.
> "Weapon lubricants froze so the only option was to use grenades" : reduced attack and defence values.
> "Vehicles froze": reduced manoeuvre points - more impact on Axis movement reqd - not just damage to vehicles etc.
> "Not used to the winter" : increased fatigue even when not in combat - not just decreased morale.
> "Wrong clothing" : increased casualties.
> "German uninsulated steam engines couldn't make steam" : reduced supply and rail capacity.
> "Not a step backwards" : reduction in admin points to reflect the impact of chain of command.

Notwithstanding the issues involved in coding such changes I believe that the blizzard should force decisions. I think forts should provide a bonus to Morale/Fatigue/Damage in a similar manner to urban terrain: therefore making retreat unpalatable. I also think that it should push the Comd to make more units static in order to free up trucks and APs.

But attrition is less as it goes on. Feb is the lowest "winter" attrition month. So we should see the CV starting to climb back up some.

Heck I don't know what the fix is, but we are on the track anyway.

Some really good stuff going on here. Some things that stand out to me as warning bells and some comments:

1. BigA's comment about German ToE strengths going into the winter vs historical and looking to "fix" that. I think part of the thing you have to look at is since the Germans are not seeing as much combat as historical (IE, the Russians are not being stupid and standing and fighting for every inch of ground and taking losses accordingly because most Russian players are smarter than this), it makes sense that their ToE's would be higher than historical. A German player that pushes as hard as they did historically should see those ToE losses creep up and those that are somewhat more conservative should see a benefit from that when it comes to ToE's, but will likely face a stronger Russian army. Your mileage will vary depending on how you do and your opponent decides to fight, etc.

2. Any winter "fix" should take into consideration the Russians suffered huge combat losses during the winter. Both sides were absolutely exhausted when mud hit in the spring. Right now, the Russians are not taking much in the way of casualties in most winter offensives. (My "casualty" rate was 4 Axis - 1 Russian so far through mid Jan in my test game). BigA, that may be something to take a look at as well between your game with Speedy and your initial game with Trey if you still have it around (compare the casualties for both sides). Right now, my impression is the Russians are not really taking much for casualties during the winter, making them that much stronger at the start of 42, when part of the reason the Germans were able to launch an offensive was because the Russians had somewhat punched themselves out and the Germans were able to recover first.

3. Try to avoid solutions that tie drastic changes to the calender. December should be the worst month the Germans face, but if you make it so horrible and take away many of the issues in Jan-Feb, the Axis will simply give a lot of ground in December to avoid those issues and make a stand in Jan-Feb. The Axis can afford to give ground for a month, but not 2-3 months. Having said that, I do repeat that December should be somewhat different for the Germans to simulate the shock of the winter and then improvement as the Axis were able to take countermeasures and become more combat effective as the winter went along.

I think the correct "feel" for the winter should see the Russians being able to push the Germans back in general about 10-12 hexes with the Germans being able to recover about 3-4 hexes or so in a few spots. (Mileage will vary with less up north and perhaps a bit more in the south, but not much). The Russians should have to make quite a few deliberate attacks to kick the Germans out of prepared positions or towns with both sides suffering a fair amount of casualties, not this 1 division (or even 1 tank brigade) hasty attack that sends most any Axis unit packing with heavy casualties. A good measure of success for the Russians should probably be something in the order of 60-65% or so with more success in December and probably less in Feb since the Russians will have likely worn themselves down killing Axis.

Hi Klydon,

It's interesting you mention about SU casualties. I've been tracking them in BA and my game and interestingly they're losing around 160-200k per week of combat vs 170-260k Axis. 2/3 of the SU are killed whereas 2/3 of Axis at present are disabled. Just some more numbers to throw around.....

How is your feel on that Speedy? You think those casualties for the Russians are about right? Added up over the winter, those seem to be pretty significant.&nbsp;

BigA's comment about German ToE strengths going into the winter vs historical and looking to "fix" that. I think part of the thing you have to look at is since the Germans are not seeing as much combat as historical (IE, the Russians are not being stupid and standing and fighting for every inch of ground and taking losses accordingly

It is something we are seeing in AI vs. AI tests, but It was something we saw in the October test with Trey, where I was "insanely aggressive", and attacked every single turn, clear, mud and snow, and the infantry divs were at 70-80% on December 1st - the Panzers were absolutely wrecked. Sov Losses were pretty historical - I pocketed 2.4million thanks to getting Leningrad and repeating the Kiev pocket.

Speedy did say his divisions were "lighter", but we have to look hard at the impact of the armaments bug.

I have a few days off, so when the cricket is finished, I will get the spreadsheets out and get as much comparative data as I can to see what has changed since October.

How is your feel on that Speedy? You think those casualties for the Russians are about right? Added up over the winter, those seem to be pretty significant. 

Both sides are suffering about double what they should, because the Sovs are attacking twice as much as they seemed to be able to previously. Unfortunately I can't apply the house rules, because I have to see just how much the system let's me get away with, so we know how much to adjust it.

I think BA just likes to be a bully [:'(]

In all seriousness the one thing I 'like' about the casualties is that it does seem to reflect a decent enough ratio - in terms of more Russians killed and more disabled for Axis. If anything I might even say that the Axis need slightly more killed than there are now because if you think about it my boys are being forced to retreat a lot into atrocious conditions whereby more should either be cut down by enemy fire on the retreat or frozen to death....

for the soviets,
&nbsp;
if you tie a corps and army commanders attribute to the blizzard bonus effect would that not create a sort of weather front? You want to show a general offensive due to winter but one that can be directed by the attacking player. It must be somewhat random in nature and have a minumum and a maximum number of units it effects in proportion to the date of the blizzard.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
my idea is:
initiative is the variable ,soviets are checked and all results in the pools are hidden from the players
&nbsp;
all the corps commanders that are active are checked first and the ones that pass are placed in a pool.&nbsp;
if you reach the end of the active corps list and the pool is not&nbsp;at a specific number for that time in the blizzard, the failed commanders are re-checked until the pool is full
&nbsp;
now all the army commanders that are active are checked with the same rules to build that pool
&nbsp;
with the pools filled what follows is,
&nbsp;
if the division is in supply to that corps it gets an attack bonus
if the corps is in supply to army it receives a supply bonus and every division attached to that corps will get a small&nbsp;addition to the&nbsp;attack bonus
&nbsp;
as the winter progresses the pools shrink down with&nbsp;a temporary limited random gain of 1&nbsp;corps at certain dates.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
great discussion people......
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

I think BA just likes to be a bully

Blame Flavio, this is the only chance I get to repay someone for the pounding I am getting in 1943.

I should say I like the option to add more fatigue during winter. Though, I won't make it general, I would make it only for attack and more for Axis non-winterized units during first winter, so the german thrust will wear out quicker and allow soviet counter attack with their winterized unit. I would be in favor of having an effect on german weapons during attacks for the first winter. I still think that in defence they did well and probably due to the fact that they could have kept their weapons warm which they cannot do when they attack.

Pipe wrench proposition to make the effect variable according to the quality of the general is quite good too. Stay to see to which caracteristic link the test.

The first blizzard malus should become lower with time. We paly a one week per turn game note one or two month turn game like WiF or Defient Russia therefore a more detail game need a more detailed mechanism for 1st winter effect. I would even go as to make it unit based. As new unit sent to front in Jan 42 won't have experience fo the winter they should take fully the fatigue and attack combat malus whereas the "veteran unit" would already have adapted to winter.

I don't know if this option is back with historical facts.

Well, beside some problems about balancing, they is it not really discussed that the russians lost nearly as much troops by blizzard as the germans?

In this game - as far as i could read - the russian army is winter-proof.
&nbsp;
in reality, the russians hat SOME well trained and winterized troops. They hat generally better prepared equipment (but even if you know that your engines can hold -20 Celisus, it dosen´t help you with -45 deg Celsius)
But their troops suffered the same as the germans, even more if they do NOT throw back the german defence lines.
Why should a russian soldier, even in winter cloths survive -40deg Celsius in a snow storm, it modern troops with 100times better equipment would loose 20-30% Combatreadyness?
The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...
&nbsp;
So my opinion: some troops are well prepared and do suffer only to a certain degree. (Mountain, sib. Troops, special trained russian troops (you can winterize em as russian), the romans had also harsh weather conditions, did they suffer the same as the germans? i don´t know exactly, but i think that this is not true), all others (including nearly all german troops) will suffer.
So the russians can do their offensive action, but only with SOME troops.
&nbsp;
This should be possible to do - or is it a silly idea?
&nbsp;
Most important - the weather need a reprogramming... every hex or - if this isn´t possible, some zones (say each is east-west the same and some hexes in north-south) with similar weather have the SAME weather...
&nbsp;
so even in blizzard, some zones are winter... same is true for sumer 41... you get SOME clear hexes, but also mud...&nbsp; this could solve the other problem, the superduper-ultragermans (in the time before blizzard)
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, beside some problems about balancing, they is it not really discussed that the russians lost nearly as much troops by blizzard as the germans?

In this game - as far as i could read - the russian army is winter-proof.

in reality, the russians hat SOME well trained and winterized troops. They hat generally better prepared equipment (but even if you know that your engines can hold -20 Celisus, it dosen´t help you with -45 deg Celsius)
But their troops suffered the same as the germans, even more if they do NOT throw back the german defence lines.
Why should a russian soldier, even in winter cloths survive -40deg Celsius in a snow storm, it modern troops with 100times better equipment would loose 20-30% Combatreadyness?
The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...

So my opinion: some troops are well prepared and do suffer only to a certain degree. (Mountain, sib. Troops, special trained russian troops (you can winterize em as russian), the romans had also harsh weather conditions, did they suffer the same as the germans? i don´t know exactly, but i think that this is not true), all others (including nearly all german troops) will suffer.
So the russians can do their offensive action, but only with SOME troops.

This should be possible to do - or is it a silly idea?

Most important - the weather need a reprogramming... every hex or - if this isn´t possible, some zones (say each is east-west the same and some hexes in north-south) with similar weather have the SAME weather...

so even in blizzard, some zones are winter... same is true for sumer 41... you get SOME clear hexes, but also mud...  this could solve the other problem, the superduper-ultragermans (in the time before blizzard)

This is interesting proposal and idea to explore, especially about the relative lose of the Russian and German during Winter.

As for the weather, should we thing about a normal Blizzard and a Harsh blizzard? This would allow for a harsh winter in later years with the random weather, but that might raise problematic questions.

Re-reading the manual I had a thought - How about a significant drop in experience? That would impact at the start of the winter - reflecting an inability to manage the impact of sudden winter warfare but would also allow for learning to cope with the conditions and ultimately make February not as bad as December.

[font=calibri]I will pose the question, has the game ever been tested to mirror the real war between two players or a single player playing both sides?  I would say based on what we are seeing the answer is NO.  This should be done to see if the game meets certain base lines, rates of advance, German loses, Russian Prisoners, Russian casaulties.  Then I think it will be obvious that there needs to be some changes to the Combat model.  German infantry Company strength going into Operation Typhoon were in some cases 1/3 of normal and all 50% or less.  In the game German strength is 60% on the low side and usually 75-85% strength.  Do a game that tries to minor the actual events of summer, fall, winter 41 and compare loses.  Then based on this test you can tweak the Blizzard turns to match the German non-combat loses due to frostbite and other winter effects. This would then get us a lot closer to what historically took place that is currently in place.[/font]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...

Totally agree, this is one of the first things I noticed about the blizzard rules, it sounds only logical that both combatants suffer. Of course Germans, given their general lack of preparedness, would suffer more.
Have never seen any real numbers that details russian frostbites, but some unconfirmed source, supposedly a russian historian stated the numbers were significant. Would be very interesting to see some real numbers.

EDIT: I also think the attrition to blizzard should be worsened when troops are attacking.
Reading about those stories where any village or kind of shelter would be the center of the days fighting, so the winner could have a place to pass the night . . . while the looser would spend then night out in the open.

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

[font=calibri]I will pose the question, has the game ever been tested to mirror the real war between two players or a single player playing both sides?  I would say based on what we are seeing the answer is NO.  This should be done to see if the game meets certain base lines, rates of advance, German loses, Russian Prisoners, Russian casaulties.  Then I think it will be obvious that there needs to be some changes to the Combat model.  German infantry Company strength going into Operation Typhoon were in some cases 1/3 of normal and all 50% or less.  In the game German strength is 60% on the low side and usually 75-85% strength.  Do a game that tries to minor the actual events of summer, fall, winter 41 and compare loses.  Then based on this test you can tweak the Blizzard turns to match the German non-combat loses due to frostbite and other winter effects. This would then get us a lot closer to what historically took place that is currently in place.[/font]

+1